Stephen Burd
Senior Writer & Editor, Higher Education
The Obama administration has filed , urging the court to throw out a lawsuit that the group formerly known as the Career College Association has brought against the Department of Education the agency finalized in November.
As we鈥檝e previously reported, the seeks to block the Education Department from putting into effect in July several rules that aim to prevent unscrupulous schools from taking advantage of financially needy students. These regulations would that Bush administration officials put in place in 2002 to help for-profit schools skirt a long-standing federal law that prohibits colleges from compensating recruiters based on their success in enrolling students; strengthen in preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal student aid programs; and bolster the ability of the Department to prevent colleges to prospective students and others about their programs.
The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, , argued in its complaint that these regulations are illegal and will be extremely damaging to its member institutions. 鈥淭he challenged regulations are beyond the Department鈥檚 authority and seek to impose on APSCU鈥檚 members and other schools, including public and non-profit schools, restrictions that are unlawful and arbitrary and capricious,鈥 the lawsuit states. 鈥淎PSCU has filed this lawsuit to prevent these unlawful regulations from harming students and the schools that serve them.鈥
In its response, which was filed with the court on Friday, the administration rejects these claims, arguing that the Department has acted well within the authority granted to it by the Higher Education Act (HEA). 鈥淭he challenged incentive compensation, misrepresentation, and state authorization regulations are all permissible under the plain language of the HEA,鈥 the government鈥檚 response states. 鈥淧laintiff鈥檚 crabbed reading of that broad language is neither persuasive nor required.鈥
The administration also challenges the lawsuit鈥檚 assumptions about the alleged harm that these rules will cause. 鈥淧laintiff鈥檚 claims amount to abject speculation about Draconian enforcement of the regulations by the Department — speculation belied by the language of the regulations themselves, statements in the preamble to the regulations, and subsequent regulatory guidance issued by the Department regarding how it interprets and intends to enforce the regulations,鈥 the government argues.
鈥淚n the event that any of plaintiff鈥檚 unsubstantiated predictions of enforcement run amok actually materialize, plaintiff is free to raise its claims at that time,鈥 the response says. 鈥淏ut it would be inappropriate for the Court to issue what would amount to an advisory opinion on these issues now.鈥
At Higher Ed Watch, that the career college lobbyists鈥 lawsuit is rife with misleading statements and out-right errors. The administration鈥檚 response supports our findings. We will elaborate more on this shortly.
In the meantime, click to read the government鈥檚 brief, to read a copy of the career college group鈥檚 original complaint, and and for our previous coverage of the lawsuit.